The Death of the Bull's Jumbo Lineup

[Stratmaster]

Can we please put a fork in it now?

There has been a lot of talk about Niko at the 3. I for one have said "Meh, maybe for a few minutes with the right matchups but not as a planned ongoing rotational lineup".

After last night and a few other recent games, I don't believe the issue is whether or not Niko could develop into a 3. This is why I am starting this as a new thread (obligatory "mods, feel free to merge if you read this and feel differently").

The Bulls jumbo lineup happens to always include Niko. While his skillsets are more valuable at the 4, I don't believe it is the skill-sets at issue. The Bulls jumbo personnel includes 4 of what most consider to be the Bulls top 6 players, with the lineup having 3 of them on the court simultaneously. Add to this that the jumbo lineup plays significant minutes against opposition 2nd teams. That lineup should be dominating opponents, right? Yet it seems to consistently get beaten while on the floor. I am coming to the conclusion that this isn't an issue of talent, or being comfortable playing together, or even having the right mix of bigs. The jumbo lineup just doesn't work on a heavy minute, consistent basis, in the NBA any more without a freakishly exceptional player (read that as "franchise type player") at one of the spots.

I don't see it as a coincidence that teams which normally are average or worse at 3 point shooting seem to turn into sharpshooters against that lineup. I don't see it as a coincidence that teams seem to run at will against that lineup. The athleticism and shooting of PG's and wing players in the league seems to make the "going big" idea a dinasour.

What do you think? Do you think Thibs will ever recognize this and quit insisting on force-feeding that lineup onto the court? Will Niko ever see meaningful minutes on the court again without 2 other bigs? Ok, the last two questions were rhetorical, so let's leave it at "what do you think".

Also, can anyone point me to a better 5 man unit stat page than basketball reference? When I look at theirs I get 20 lineups, none of which include the jumbo lineup. I tried doing a manual filter request/sort and failed there as well. I know it is likely my lack of competence at navigating their pages, but any help would be appreciated. I would like to see the 5 man groupings that include jumbo lineups as compared to the rest of the 5 man groupings. thanks in advance.

[Ice Man]

It's a good question ... can *any* jumbo lineup work in today's NBA?

On a side note, jumbo lineups usually seem to work better in theory than in reality. At least when it comes to Twin Towers, man that almost never works.

[Flopper]

I've been hoping that Tom is just using it as a means to get more minutes for all the bigs, but that seems doubtful. It could be useful situationally against teams like the Cavs where you want an offensive lineup that makes it hard to switch bigger wings on to Derrick (Lebron) and force smaller guards to try and contain him (Kyrie). Hopefully that second quarter in Miami is the nail in the coffin for it being used as a normal rotation unit.

[DanTown8587]

Can we please put a fork in it now?

There has been a lot of talk about Niko at the 3. I for one have said "Meh, maybe for a few minutes with the right matchups but not as a planned ongoing rotational lineup".

After last night and a few other recent games, I don't believe the issue is whether or not Niko could develop into a 3. This is why I am starting this as a new thread (obligatory "mods, feel free to merge if you read this and feel differently").

The Bulls jumbo lineup happens to always include Niko. While his skillsets are more valuable at the 4, I don't believe it is the skill-sets at issue. The Bulls jumbo personnel includes 4 of what most consider to be the Bulls top 6 players, with the lineup having 3 of them on the court simultaneously. Add to this that the jumbo lineup plays significant minutes against opposition 2nd teams. That lineup should be dominating opponents, right? Yet it seems to consistently get beaten while on the floor. I am coming to the conclusion that this isn't an issue of talent, or being comfortable playing together, or even having the right mix of bigs. The jumbo lineup just doesn't work on a heavy minute, consistent basis, in the NBA any more without a freakishly exceptional player (read that as "franchise type player") at one of the spots.

I don't see it as a coincidence that teams which normally are average or worse at 3 point shooting seem to turn into sharpshooters against that lineup. I don't see it as a coincidence that teams seem to run at will against that lineup. The athleticism and shooting of PG's and wing players in the league seems to make the "going big" idea a dinasour.

What do you think? Do you think Thibs will ever recognize this and quit insisting on force-feeding that lineup onto the court? Will Niko ever see meaningful minutes on the court again without 2 other bigs? Ok, the last two questions were rhetorical, so let's leave it at "what do you think".

Also, can anyone point me to a better 5 man unit stat page than basketball reference? When I look at theirs I get 20 lineups, none of which include the jumbo lineup. I tried doing a manual filter request/sort and failed there as well. I know it is likely my lack of competence at navigating their pages, but any help would be appreciated. I would like to see the 5 man groupings that include jumbo lineups as compared to the rest of the 5 man groupings. thanks in advance.

B-R is the best at the lineup data IMO, when it comes to individual lineups it's best to search a player' lineup finder.

Gasol - Noah - Mirotic: +7 in 59 minutes
Gasol - Gibson - Mirotic: +9 in 103 minutes
Gibson - Noah - Mirotic: -12 in 169 minutes
Gasol-Gibson-Noah: 1 possession defensively = 0 points

[Red Larrivee]

I'll repost from the PG thread:

I looked at each lineup that has Mirotic at the 4 and Gibson at the 5. There are six of them. The +/- for each:

+17
+15
+20
-9
-3
+13

There are 4 lineups with Mirotic at the 3:

-2
-27
-10
+9

Yes it needs to die, but Thibodeau gonna Thibodeau.

[Rerisen]

It's not dead and we're going to keep seeing it, playoffs as well.

Why? Because the Bulls have not established any consistent or superior alternatives. Because of injuries and missed games, we actually have no reliable sample sizes to even know what really works well or not on this team. Our regular starting lineups is a measly +3 over 100 possessions, while other elite teams are coasting between +7 and +20. Why wouldn't we hunt for more title worthy combinations?

At over 100 minutes the Bulls only have 2 lineups that have performed at a very high level. One is Kirk/Rose/Gibson/Gasol/Butler at +7.0 and the other is Snell with the starters in place of Dunleavy at +10.6. This could be a closing lineup but because Thibs won't change the starters, he won't be able to use it much before then.

People talk endlessly about Mirotic at the 4, and while that seems to no doubt be better for Nikola Mirotic *individually*, and he needs to play there some, its not conclusive that its actually better for the Chicago Bulls all the time, or that he should never play SF.

[Red Larrivee]

It's not dead and we're going to keep seeing it, playoffs as well.

Why? Because the Bulls have not established any consistent or superior alternatives. Because of injuries and missed games, we actually have no reliable sample sizes to even know what really works well or not on this team. Our regular starting lineups is a measly +3 over 100 possessions, while other elite teams are coasting between +7 and +20. Why wouldn't we hunt for more title worthy combinations?

At over 100 minutes the Bulls only have 2 lineups that have performed at a very high level. One is Kirk/Rose/Gibson/Gasol/Butler at +7.0 and the other is Snell with the starters in place of Dunleavy at +10.6. This could be a closing lineup but because Thibs won't change the starters, he won't be able to use it much before then.

People talk endlessly about Mirotic at the 4, and while that seems to no doubt be better for Nikola Mirotic *individually*, and he needs to play there some, its not conclusive that its actually better for the Chicago Bulls all the time, or that he should never play SF.

Regarding the last paragraph, it is conclusive that its bad for the team. Look at the lineup numbers above.

On average:

+8.8 when Mirotic plays PF with Gibson at C.
-7.5 when Mirotic plays SF at any point.

[RebuildaBulls]

I believe in the offseason either Bulls will make room for Niko at PF or Niko will learn how to play SF. Hes been learning SF on the fly this season, I think an offseason training and making him plays as a SF will do wonders. But I still think he would be way better at PF no matter what

[Stratmaster]

I'll repost from the PG thread:

I looked at each lineup that has Mirotic at the 4 and Gibson at the 5. There are six of them. The +/- for each:

+17
+15
+20
-9
-3
+13

There are 4 lineups with Mirotic at the 3:

-2
-27
-10
+9

Yes it needs to die, but Thibodeau gonna Thibodeau.

Thanks, that is helpful. I think we can safely make an assumption from this that the lineups with Niko at the 3 don't compare well to most of the common lineups that include any two of the 4 bigs. It is just brutal to see the bulls play solid basketball, then switch to that jumbo lineup and watch the game get out of hand.

3 games left for Thibs to figure it out...

[Rerisen]

egarding the last paragraph, it is conclusive that its bad for the team. Look at the lineup numbers above.

On average:

+8.8 when Mirotic plays PF with Gibson at C.
-7.5 when Mirotic plays SF at any point.

Mirotic's best lineups are all under 50 minutes, that is extremely insignificant to plan your rotation around.

Worse, they are all with Aaron Brooks. Aaron Brooks is not Derrick Rose, so that is telling us again nothing about what might work best with Derrick now back.

Mirotic has a +38 lineup with 47 minutes, featuring Kirk Hinrich at PG. Should we start Kirk Hinrich based on that? Because that's basically the sample sizes people are trying to use to declare hard and fast rules about what we should or not be doing.

Niko plays best at the 4, but playing there he is replacing far better players than he would be replacing at the 3, so its not just a simple case of where is one guy is the best dictating what is best for the team. Niko only need play at a far lower level to impact more over the SF options than he has to play at the 4 to increase our on floor performance to the same degree.

This is the quandary we are facing. Not where does Nikola Mirotic produce more stats for someone's fantasy team.

[Stratmaster]

I believe in the offseason either Bulls will make room for Niko at PF or Niko will learn how to play SF. Hes been learning SF on the fly this season, I think an offseason training and making him plays as a SF will do wonders. But I still think he would be way better at PF no matter what

Just to keep this from being a rehash of the Niko thread...I should have clarified the OP better. I am considering whether the 3 bigs are viable regardless of Niko's fit as a 3. Specifically I am considering what the Bulls approach should be as they enter into the playoffs this season.

[Ice Man]

I am considering whether the 3 bigs are viable regardless of Niko's fit as a 3

You were clear on that. The question is not about Niko, it's about when and if playing 3 jumbos works. I'm not sure that it does. Period.

[Stratmaster]

egarding the last paragraph, it is conclusive that its bad for the team. Look at the lineup numbers above.

On average:

+8.8 when Mirotic plays PF with Gibson at C.
-7.5 when Mirotic plays SF at any point.

Mirotic's best lineups are all under 50 minutes, that is extremely insignificant to plan your rotation around.

Worse, they are all with Aaron Brooks. Aaron Brooks is not Derrick Rose, so that is telling us again nothing about what might work best with Derrick now back.

Mirotic has a +38 lineup with 47 minutes, featuring Kirk Hinrich at PG. Should we start Kirk Hinrich based on that? Because that's basically the sample sizes people are trying to use to declare hard and fast rules about what we should or not be doing.

Niko plays best at the 4, but playing there he is replacing far better players than he would be replacing at the 3, so its not just a simple case of where is one guy is the best dictating what is best for the team. Niko only need play at a far lower level to impact more over the SF options than he has to play at the 4 to increase our on floor performance to the same degree.

This is the quandary we are facing. Not where does Nikola Mirotic produce more stats for someone's fantasy team.

I agree with all of your points about the Bulls injuries resulting in most lineups having a small sample size. I also have now come to believe that the Bulls are better off with MDJ at SF, or even Snell, than they are with Niko there. In no way do I think they are better players than Niko...I'm Niko's biggest fan. I just do not believe the Bulls can be successful playing 3 bigs meaningful minutes together. And while I think MDJ's offensive impact can be great and meaningful when the "scorers" on the team are struggling, as he has shown on multiple occasions this season, I see it more about defense than offense. The 3 big lineup is scored against at will by even average shooters and average fast break teams.

[coldfish]

I think that posting unit information, on / off, +/- stuff for this team is pointless. The team has had players going in and out, different systems, young guys learning, other teams making adjustments, etc. Any season long analysis includes data sets that just aren't relevant to the team in the playoffs. The overwhelming picture is that the team is screwed. I haven't seen one data set where you have a significant sample size pointing to a dominant group and good plan.

Beyond that, the team's issue is defense. The Bulls are not going to outscore the top teams in the NBA. The Bulls just don't have the players to match up with teams like Cleveland and Golden State in scoring shootouts. Any lineup discussion has to be based around that.

Is the jumbo lineup good? No, so far it hasn't been. However, how would it be with Derrick playing at a high level? The answer, like so much else with this team is: WE DON'T FREAKING KNOW!!

Personally, I have no suggestions. I think the season is just about done. Not enough time to get everything together for a serious playoff run. You can't give up though and I would think that a lineup with Rose / Butler / Mirotic and two of Gibson, Noah and Gasol should be something worth trying out. It probably puts the most talent on the floor that the Bulls can muster.

[Rerisen]

Niko has two different lineups at SF, both jumbo, with Gibson and Noah, one is +12 and one is +11. The combined minutes of those 2 lineups are 53.

Now tell me is 53 minutes a worthy sample to rely on? If not, then no Niko lineups are, because even his best from when he's at the 4 are in the same minute range.

[DanTown8587]

It's not dead and we're going to keep seeing it, playoffs as well.

Why? Because the Bulls have not established any consistent or superior alternatives. Because of injuries and missed games, we actually have no reliable sample sizes to even know what really works well or not on this team. Our regular starting lineups is a measly +3 over 100 possessions, while other elite teams are coasting between +7 and +20. Why wouldn't we hunt for more title worthy combinations?

At over 100 minutes the Bulls only have 2 lineups that have performed at a very high level. One is Kirk/Rose/Gibson/Gasol/Butler at +7.0 and the other is Snell with the starters in place of Dunleavy at +10.6. This could be a closing lineup but because Thibs won't change the starters, he won't be able to use it much before then.

People talk endlessly about Mirotic at the 4, and while that seems to no doubt be better for Nikola Mirotic *individually*, and he needs to play there some, its not conclusive that its actually better for the Chicago Bulls all the time, or that he should never play SF.

What advantage does Niko at the 3 give the Bulls? What team can't match-up there? Every player has some strengths or weaknesses playing at different positions; the problem with this roster is that at the cost of Taj Gibson and either one of Noah and Gasol, Niko provides a match-up problem for his own man and creates things for others on the floor (space). When you play Gibson or Noah at the 4 spot next to Gasol or Noah at the 5, you don't have a good offense. Even the lineups that have decent numbers like the Snell with starters relies on three shooters who don't shoot .411% from three shooting that rate when together (i.e it's random variation, not some lineup that produces success).

The lineup that produces the most value to the Bulls is

Rose - Butler - Snell/Dunleavy/Brooks - Mirotic - Noah/Gasol/Gibson
OR
Rose - Butler - Snell - Gibson - Noah (turtle)

Both of those lineups produce something that you can see: the first provides a ton of space for the Bulls to exploit a team's defensive deficiency. Go small, post Gasol or Butler. Spread the floor for P&R with Derrick and Gasol. Most athletic grouping (Snell+Gibson) that can switch everything defensively.

The latter group has immense defensive ability and on offense, you can try and just let Derrick and Jimmy create enough to outscore the other team.

It just doesn't make sense to keep playing Mirotic at the 3 for the hope he'll develop a skill set at the 3 that gives the Bulls an advantage. It's like trying to make Joakim Noah a PF to play next to Pau Gasol: yes they're both talented players but neither one could ever have the skill set to be a good PF.

[Red Larrivee]

egarding the last paragraph, it is conclusive that its bad for the team. Look at the lineup numbers above.

On average:

+8.8 when Mirotic plays PF with Gibson at C.
-7.5 when Mirotic plays SF at any point.

Mirotic's best lineups are all under 50 minutes, that is extremely insignificant to plan your rotation around.

Worse, they are all with Aaron Brooks. Aaron Brooks is not Derrick Rose, so that is telling us again nothing about what might work best with Derrick now back.

Mirotic has a +38 lineup with 47 minutes, featuring Kirk Hinrich at PG. Should we start Kirk Hinrich based on that? Because that's basically the sample sizes people are trying to use to declare hard and fast rules about what we should or not be doing.

Niko plays best at the 4, but playing there he is replacing far better players than he would be replacing at the 3, so its not just a simple case of where is one guy is the best dictating what is best for the team. Niko only need play at a far lower level to impact more over the SF options than he has to play at the 4 to increase our on floor performance to the same degree.

This is the quandary we are facing. Not where does Nikola Mirotic produce more stats for someone's fantasy team.

I think you're missing the point that not only does Mirotic play better at PF, but the Bulls play better when he's at PF. Theres nothing that supports him playing at SF other than a pure desire to not decrease the minutes of Gibson.

Mirotic has a 10.6 PER when he plays at SF. That's worse than Mike Dunleavy (12.4) AND Tony Snell's PER (11.2) at the same position. You're not improving the position or team by playing him there. There's literally nothing the Bulls get better at, so why do people support him playing there?

[Rerisen]

I agree with all of your points about the Bulls injuries resulting in most lineups having a small sample size. I also have now come to believe that the Bulls are better off with MDJ at SF, or even Snell, than they are with Niko there. In no way do I think they are better players than Niko...I'm Niko's biggest fan. I just do not believe the Bulls can be successful playing 3 bigs meaningful minutes together. And while I think MDJ's offensive impact can be great and meaningful when the "scorers" on the team are struggling, as he has shown on multiple occasions this season, I see it more about defense than offense. The 3 big lineup is scored against at will by even average shooters and average fast break teams.

Here's my take, and its a little more philosophical than how most people are judging this.

I have yet to see any lineup combinations or consistent play from the Bulls this year that leads me to believe anything we have proven yet shows championship pedigree. Just putting Niko at the 4 a lot because his stats were good there while others were out, noticeably Rose, to me is not going to produce a championship. It may perform better than the jumbo lineups, it may not, both are likely to fall short.

We simply don't have the talent on the floor by all evidence we've seen to date. Not unless Rose or Noah are playing at peak levels and that doesn't look like its going to happen.

To beat teams like ATL and CLE I think we are going to have to raise our ceiling. The easiest area to raise it is the 2nd wing, where we have extremely mediocre production. While I want to see Niko get some time at the 4, we actually don't need Niko to play all his minutes at the 4 in order to produce quality 4/5 combinations. We can get that from other players. But we can't get standout, Niko level talent at the 3 from other players. Because we don't have high talent choices there.

But if we can get even 80% of his ability from there, which heck, him just hitting his open shots would go a long way to doing, then the team has an avenue to actually raise its on court ceiling and perhaps start approaching the as yet, far superior teams ahead of us in the playoffs.

[Rerisen]

Mirotic has a 10.6 PER when he plays at SF. That's worse than Mike Dunleavy AND Tony Snell's PER at the we position. You're not improving the position or team by playing him there.

Again, they are all low minute samples and they are all without Derrick Rose.

If people think all it takes is play Niko at the 4 all game and thus reduce other good players minute like Gasol, Noah and Gibson, and this is how we are going to win a title, then better pray for MVP Derrick Rose, because that's the only way its going to happen.

The team needs to find other areas of opportunity to get better beside praying for MVP Rose. If you want to give up on that based on a couple of 40 minute lineups, then fine, but its only cutting off a potential upside closing lineup that could be winning games for us in the playoffs.

Niko at the 3 allows you to have potentially 4 playmakers on the floor (Rose, Gasol, Butler, Mirotic) while not sacrificing any size or physical defense inside.

Do we know it doesn't work, no because we've never tried it. We've tried a bunch of lineups with Aaron Brooks, who doesn't pass the ball anyway.

[Red Larrivee]

Mirotic has a 10.6 PER when he plays at SF. That's worse than Mike Dunleavy AND Tony Snell's PER at the we position. You're not improving the position or team by playing him there.

Again, they are all low minute sample and they are all without Derrick Rose.

If people think all it takes is play Niko at the 4 all game and thus reduce other good players minute like Gasol, Noah and Gibson, and this is how we are going to win a title, then better pray for MVP Derrick Rose, because that's the only way its going to happen.

The team needs to find other areas of opportunity to get better beside praying for MVP Rose. If you want to give up on that based on a couple of 40 minute lineups, then fine, but its only cutting off a potential upside closing lineup that could be winning games for us in the playoffs.

Niko at the 3 allows you to have potentially 4 playmakers on the floor (Rose, Gasol, Butler, Mirotic) while not sacrificing any size or physical defense inside.

But you're marginalizing the strengths of Mirotic and crippling spacing by doing it which leads to a worse team. What you gain defensively isnt worth what you lose on offense. Mirotic is a worse SF than Snell and Dunleavy.

The low minute sample sizes are being backed up by the eye test. If I had time I could use so many screenshots from last nights game as further evidence. How quickly people forget.